"'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

The meaning of a claim term and the scope of the claim can not depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of the person practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

“While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor.” Datamize v. Plumtree Software, 417 F.3d at 1350. “Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.” Id.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte CrainO’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP Appellant’s argument focuses on a time that the claimed ground contact is set in position and disregards the actual structure of the ground contact when comparing the claimed ground contact to Thalhammer’s claw point. “It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Our reviewing court’s predecessor stated that “[t]he manner or method in which [a] machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA 1967). And, “a statement of intended use… does not qualify or distinguish the structural apparatus claimed over the reference.” In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492 (CCPA 1962).